National Popular Vote Interstate Compact

[muon2]

It scares the hell out of me. Ideally, Congress would pass a law preventing this system.

If the electoral college must go, it would be better if we just abolished it. I won't support anything like this, however.

This system wouldn't be activated until enough states with a combined majority of EVs ratify it. And once it gets ratified, it will essentially mean electing our President directly by PV. If this ever gets ratified and won't get overturned or ruled unconstitutional, except a formal repeal of the Electoral College to follow shortly afterwards. I don't see what's so scary about it, unless one of course supports the EC.

What bothers me is a popular vote without a runoff if no candidate reaches a majority. Non-parliamentary leadership posts, such as the President of France, face such a runoff. The EC provides for a runoff in the House. Even the constitutional amendment proposal of 1970 (Bayh-Cellar) to provide for direct election had a runoff provision is no candidate received 40%.

[muon2]

Anyway, I think this system is wrong, because if it gets passed (which I doubt it will), the states that haven't signed the compact are going to be totally irrelevant to the election.

Aren't 35 of the states already irrelevant to the election already?

I wouldn't say that the states are irrelevant. You could claim that voters in states that are not competitive for a particular election may feel like they have less impact, but the EVs of the states certainly matter.

As for the non-signatory states, I would think that they would not be irrelevant either. They would be disenfranchised, since this is clearly a way to resolve a constitutional matter without amendment. That the compact has found a loophole that they believe can be exploited, does not make states who feel that the intent is otherwise feel any less disenfranchised.

[muon2]

It scares the hell out of me. Ideally, Congress would pass a law preventing this system.

If the electoral college must go, it would be better if we just abolished it. I won't support anything like this, however.

This system wouldn't be activated until enough states with a combined majority of EVs ratify it. And once it gets ratified, it will essentially mean electing our President directly by PV. If this ever gets ratified and won't get overturned or ruled unconstitutional, except a formal repeal of the Electoral College to follow shortly afterwards. I don't see what's so scary about it, unless one of course supports the EC.

What bothers me is a popular vote without a runoff if no candidate reaches a majority. Non-parliamentary leadership posts, such as the President of France, face such a runoff. The EC provides for a runoff in the House. Even the constitutional amendment proposal of 1970 (Bayh-Cellar) to provide for direct election had a runoff provision is no candidate received 40%.

True, it's a potential problem in that more extreme candidates could win with a small percentage of the vote in a 3 or 4 or more major candidate race, but such problems have rarely befallen governor's races, senate races, house races, state legislative races, etc. Every other election in the US almost without exception uses the popular vote, so I don't see how the Presidency is unique enough to need its own separate system of election.

And to the extent that it does need a unique system, I don't see what's so special about geographical boundaries on a map that makes that a better way of classifying the importance of one's vote as opposed to any other characteristic. Why not have each race, gender, religion, class, etc. have a certain number of electoral votes?

I think that the presidency is unique compared to other offices in the country. It's the top executive post, and as I point out many other countries recognize that it's wise to require the national executive to command a majority.

Parliamentary democracies don't have direct election of the prime minister, but do require a majority of member votes. The EC in many ways acts like a parliament electing a prime minister with a majority required. If that fails the top candidates face a runoff in Congress.

Just because FPTP is adequate for representative seats does not make it the best model for the chief executive. For those with concerns about the extra election cycle, a modern runoff can use IRV to accomplish the same goal without the extra cycle.

[muon2]

Mass becomes the 6th state to join this unconstitutional compact, the 6 states account for 73 of the 270 EV needed to bring the compact into force.

I wonder how they would feel about their electors going to a President-elect Palin

I've long thought the same thing, but applied to a situation where Obama might lose in 2012. Would IL really be willing to see its electors go against the favorite son?

[muon2]

Mass becomes the 6th state to join this unconstitutional compact, the 6 states account for 73 of the 270 EV needed to bring the compact into force.

I wonder how they would feel about their electors going to a President-elect Palin

I've long thought the same thing, but applied to a situation where Obama might lose in 2012. Would IL really be willing to see its electors go against the favorite son?

In a right world, any State should be willing to "give" his electors to the candidate the people has chosen.

No, the notion of electors is akin to delegates at a convention or members within a parliament. People elect those delegates from individual constituencies to represent themselves, not to represent the whole of the public outside the constituency. A delegate at a nominating convention is there to vote for the candidate supported by a majority in the district - particularly on the first ballot. A parliamentary member would be expected to not vote for another party's prime minister, even though a majority of the nation supported that other party.

My point is that even if the legislature has determined that they want to select electors based on the popular vote, many in the public will feel cheated if they didn't get to see their electors reflect the will of the public in their state. I would anticipate that this feeling would be stronger when a candidate is from that state.

[muon2]

Maybe, but the Presidential election isn't a legislative election. The Electoral College isn't a permanent body with legislative power, it's made simply for the sake of electing the President. And I don't see why the people shouldn't be able to choose its president directly. The reason given by founding fathers made sense at the time, as the people probably wasn't mature enough for direct democracy, and electors could be a mitigating factor. But now, there aren't anymore : they simply reflect the will of the people in their State. Or more exactly they unexactly represent the will of a more or less great plurality of the voters of each State. What's the point of that ?

And my answer remains that a directly elected president should come with a majority vote requirement and a runoff of the top two in case of no majority. Either the system is modeled on delegate selection like the current EC, or it should be a true majority vote system like France. I find the NPVIC to be the worst of both worlds.